In the battle against the deficit, there is no politician, trade unionist or indignant person who does not use the unquestioned idea that those who have more should pay more. Although it is frowned upon to oppose it, it should be qualified. First, it is more logical that those who earn more pay more and not those who have more; as good as it sounds, the latter penalizes austerity, since one can have a lot simply for having spent little.

Secondly, inspection limitations mean that, in the internship, the person who pays the most is not the one who earns the most, but the one who earns it in a taxable manner; payroll income is taxed more than income from deductible environments. Finally, it is worth considering the question of how much. The argument, which can be fair with tax differentials of 10 points, but can become unfair with differentials of, say, 40 points; the slogan is not indefinitely estimable.

It is also worth asking (rhetorically, eh?) a question: why should those who have more pay more and not those who consume more, as happens, for example, at a dinner party between acquaintances? Having launched the provocation, it seems fair that necessary expenses should be financed, out of solidarity, by those who earn more; for the same reason it can be argued that non-necessary expenses should be financed by those who consume them: in the discussion of who pays how much should be very present the end of expense, an end that depends on its sustainability and on the collective and honest recognition of which expenses are necessary and which are not.